[ExI] Do digital computers feel was Re: Is the wave function real?
stathisp at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 22:39:05 UTC 2016
On 17 December 2016 at 13:48, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
> I think I see how to make progress here with what you are saying. I'm
> going to explain how I hear what you are saying, and you can let me know
> what I'm still missing. Let me restate my position more concisely and
> point out the falsifiable predictions being made by my theory, and then see
> if I can concisely state what your not quite falsifiable position is and
> how it differs?
> I believe there is an emerging consensus around the idea that there is a
> consistent neural correlate to a redness quality and a consistently
> observably different neural correlate for a greenness quality. This theory
> could be proven, if we find these, and with that can reliably predict (i.e.
> demonstrably never fails or is never falsified) at observing such differing
> correlates in other's brains, letting us reliably know whether any brain is
> using redness or greenness to represent an abstracted word like red. The
> only problem is, currently, when we observe something in the brain, our
> senses give us abstracted information, like the word "red" to describe what
> we are detecting, and this information does not have any quality to it -
> and is only meant to represent such, given the correct interpretation. At
> best, we interpret the words like red as if it was representing the quality
> of the surface of the strawberry, or the initial source of the perception
> process (why we think it is the same for all people, even if what we
> observe in the brain is different and needs to be "corrected"). Worst
> case, we are interpreting the abstracted information we are detecting about
> what is in the brain as if it had no quality at all. For an example of
> both of these types of errors, see this current article "The color of
> consciousness" recently published in "The New York Review of Books"
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/12/08/color-of-consciousness/ . They
> say both that the physical brain is just "
> matter" and also that it has no color at all and just think there is a
> "hard" problem or a conundrum because of these miss interpretations.
> So, I'm making the demonstrable prediction that the neural correlate of
> redness is more than just the "neural correlate" it is what actually has
> the redness quality we experience and that this consistent relationship,
> once found, will never fail at predicting when someone is experiencing
> redness or greenness. I'm describing week, stronger and strongest methods
> for achieving this knowledge (see my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=AHuqZKxtOf4) You seem to be unwilling to say that is possible as you
> claim that even if something in the brain is the neural correlate of
> redness, the actual mindful experience is separated from this physical
> reality, and you seem to be claiming that a mindful redness quality has no
> demonstrably reliable relationship to physical reality and isn't
> approachable via science. You seem to say that with: "there is no way
> they could know if my subjective experience of those colors was inverted
> from their own."
> So, at best you seem to be leaning towards Cartesian dualism, where there
> is a neither "spirit" world which is not approachable via science and that
> this unknowable neither world is the realm of your mindful experiences.
> It's just that instead of admitting that your view is Descartes dualism,
> you are simply claiming it is in the mind. Even though you say that "the
> mind is what the brain does" this seems to contradict your assertion that
> "there is no way they could know...", implying there might be (as in never
> say never fails) a complete lack of relationship between physical
> detectable reality and what is in any "mind"?
When a hammer hits a nail, it is possible that red qualia are produced. How
would you go about proving or disproving this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat